Feedback: Missions

Feedback and debriefings from Berget 16

Rate it!

5 - Excellent
2
3%
4 - Good, but could be better
16
22%
3 - Ok
32
44%
2 - Bad
20
27%
1 - Terrible
3
4%
 
Total votes: 73

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 571
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Arradin » 04 Jul 2018, 15:16

Sweeper wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:10
I dont know were to put this Complain but here it comes.



I asked Berget Event, and a Berget Trustee a simple Question. About the BB Weight. Do to the INFO slip handed out at check in Last year, and the Info on the Berget Website wasent the same...

NONE of you returned my Question, is that good "customer" service? when it lacking on the Berget side. An can have an effect for my game and others.


But all in all, great Berget Game.
if you didnt get an answer right away, it wasnt an simple question.

You need to ask the actual question, so i can get the answer for you :)
You can reach me directly at email: berget@arradin.com

User avatar
Hawkins
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Nov 2010, 18:49
Location: Vaasa, Finland
Contact:

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Hawkins » 04 Jul 2018, 15:49

L4gi wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:15
jdoe wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:01
L4gi wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 14:50
By screwing up our plans elsewhere on the map, that were linked directly to the change in leadership. Its a big picture thing, not just some small "bloodbath"
:D Okay. Didn't realize 13 guys could do that...
Shouldnt be like that, but somehow you managed. :D
I was in contact with UPIR PsyOps during the majority of the game. I was informed about the "election" option on the last day. Afterwards, I also heard that it was a sanctioned outcome. What I understood from talking with the PsyOp guys on your side, they were drowning in work and did not have the time available to give the election option the time it required. The Firm requested and audience with the PsyOp crew but we never managed that unfortunately. And as per UPIR blowing up our surrendering troops (this was during the raid) at the office with a grenade, we had some "ligitimate beef" for a while, since we were LARPing. We never opened fire on anyone, we returned fire if we were shot at first. We had some really interesting encounters with UPIR during the game outside of the village. In the village though, we were always shot at.

The election would have made the game interesting had it happened and we were preparing to execute this before we were given the order to stand down, due to the game drawing so close to the end.
B9 - B16
The Footsoldier

M.Koho
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 156
Joined: 19 Apr 2010, 18:28
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by M.Koho » 04 Jul 2018, 18:40

Hawkins wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:49
L4gi wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:15
jdoe wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:01


:D Okay. Didn't realize 13 guys could do that...
Shouldnt be like that, but somehow you managed. :D
I was in contact with UPIR PsyOps during the majority of the game. I was informed about the "election" option on the last day. Afterwards, I also heard that it was a sanctioned outcome. What I understood from talking with the PsyOp guys on your side, they were drowning in work and did not have the time available to give the election option the time it required. The Firm requested and audience with the PsyOp crew but we never managed that unfortunately. And as per UPIR blowing up our surrendering troops (this was during the raid) at the office with a grenade, we had some "ligitimate beef" for a while, since we were LARPing. We never opened fire on anyone, we returned fire if we were shot at first. We had some really interesting encounters with UPIR during the game outside of the village. In the village though, we were always shot at.

The election would have made the game interesting had it happened and we were preparing to execute this before we were given the order to stand down, due to the game drawing so close to the end.
As PsyOps CO I can confirm this. Also I was told due to ingame balance between forces we should not side with the mercs too early, as it would be a tad bit too unbalanced to have UPIR and Mercs going after NAF together. Also I pretty much ignored the part about just buying the mercs as it would be too easy and a bit boring ingame. Election thingy sounded a lot more fun. Still really enjoyed the meta part of the game, as PsyOps was really succesful with PsyOps considering NAF. Win some lose some!
Migog
Tiera Airsoft
B8: Poldavia
B9: The Firm/Zansia
B10: Zansia
B11: GCT - SFODU
B12: GCT - HVIU/Jonathan Goodwill
B13: GCT - Rangers
B14: NAF - RANCOM Janitor
B15: FINBAT - Recon Platoon
B16: UPIR - HQ/TOC

User avatar
grasulas
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 208
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 14:57
Location: Bucharest / Romania
Contact:

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by grasulas » 05 Jul 2018, 01:06

To many "go take CP and hold it", I will love to see the old get supply drop from a not so precise area, or go find the drone, or go find some mystical hero in the village who can tell me where the great treasure is ... I understand the main important missions has to be kept under control but the rest of the missions just as a diversity from the main conquer and hold crap should exist ...
_______________________________
Berget Veteran

Sweeper
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 4
Joined: 20 Apr 2009, 21:15

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Sweeper » 05 Jul 2018, 18:08

Arradin wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:16
Sweeper wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 15:10
I dont know were to put this Complain but here it comes.



I asked Berget Event, and a Berget Trustee a simple Question. About the BB Weight. Do to the INFO slip handed out at check in Last year, and the Info on the Berget Website wasent the same...

NONE of you returned my Question, is that good "customer" service? when it lacking on the Berget side. An can have an effect for my game and others.


But all in all, great Berget Game.
if you didnt get an answer right away, it wasnt an simple question.

You need to ask the actual question, so i can get the answer for you :)

Oh you mean the private message i sent you on 17th may, were i DID ask you the Actual Question...

User avatar
grasulas
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 208
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 14:57
Location: Bucharest / Romania
Contact:

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by grasulas » 08 Jul 2018, 12:35

BTW regarding the missions and WHAT IS MISSING just go back and watch videos for Berget 8,9 and 10 how it look when you had to escort a real fucking truck with a huge missile on it, or to see a full company size element disembarking from actual military trucks .... how the roleplay look in Janco.

You guys start to miss the little details, the little "missions" that made the game super not just good ...
_______________________________
Berget Veteran

User avatar
TerrenceAnth
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: 21 Nov 2011, 09:22
Location: Donegal Ireland

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by TerrenceAnth » 08 Jul 2018, 16:08

Short and sweet

HQ: Move there

Hawk: moves

HQ: hold

Hawk:Holds

HQ:rtb

Hawk: what the hell was the point in this then?

This was the Trend over and over this year never had a game like it in 7 years of berget. We had alot of fun with our company and doing sneaky stuff but the missions where stale and felt like there were little to no point in them.
B10: NAF 23rd light infantry. Fox 2.3 recon PL
B11: Blood Ravens PL
B12: Sledgehammer Company Commander
B:13 GCT Special Parachute Infantry PL
B14 NAF Infantry PL
B15 Ballsdeepwreckingcrew
B16 UPIR Hawk 9 Company Commander
B17 Coming Soon.....

The Black Watch
Blood for the blood god!

Panzergraf
Major
Major
Posts: 628
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:04
Location: Norway

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Panzergraf » 12 Jul 2018, 15:23

I would have like to see more focus on dominating the battlefield (which could include taking and holding CP's - I like the CP system) rather than "do X because mission, then come back and wait." It felt a bit too much like a big game of whack-a-mole rather than a contiuous symmetrical war, which in my opinion is what Berget is at its best.
Veteran of 11 Berget Games
B6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
B16 - Upir Mech

Dutchman
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Dec 2017, 12:25

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Dutchman » 17 Jul 2018, 10:57

A whole bunch of us had the feeling that the (at least in UPIR) non-Skandinavians were just there to take the missions Alpha and Bravo didn't want to do. As if we were just there to provide targets for the others and not contribute to the war effort.
At some point I got so frustrated that I cosidered going back to base, shoot all of HQ and barricade it, just so that Charlie can finally have some fun making up their own missions.

Just walking to the other side of the map, wait for 3 hours then come back to base (several of these missions) is not milsim to me. Milsim is capturing objectives and then push the line, not just go for a hike. Some in my squad didn't even shoot more then 4 mags during the whole event because of crappy missions... I don't need to drive 1500km and pay a lot of money to just go for a walk...

What made it worth the effort was the great people I met (Apo , Terry and all you Black Watch-blokes, you guys are awesome!)

I will return to Berget next year but will probably do the following: check when my squad has base defence duty (and ofcourse do it) and for the rest of the time keep an eye on the map and do our own missions.

User avatar
Windi^
Captain
Captain
Posts: 359
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 13:46
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Windi^ » 17 Jul 2018, 12:10

Dutchman wrote:
17 Jul 2018, 10:57
I will return to Berget next year but will probably do the following: check when my squad has base defence duty (and ofcourse do it) and for the rest of the time keep an eye on the map and do our own missions.
Most of the time you really can't hold HQ responsible not to get chance to shoot. They handle out missions based on what company is available, how many men they have, when they are ready to move and so on. And missions comes basically from BE. If you got bad luck and not get to shoot, I really can't see how HQ is to blame for that.

"Doing your own missions", aka going rogue was issue this year. And if you plan to do it whatever the situation next year, you really should stay home. This way you just f*ck up all the plans, ruin game for other players etc. For example, we sat on guard duty extra time since other players decided to go and do their own stuff, so they couldn't relief us from base guard duty. That pisses me off. I'll do it, but I don't like that people only think about their own asses. I'm not going to leave my guard duty before someone else comes and relieves me. We were 20 guys doing the guard duty with minimal rotation. It's not fun, but we still did it. So why is it so hard for some of the players try and do their share of that? Man up goddammit!
B5, FFF Turku-2 Squad leader
B6, SRP Snake 1-0 Platoon leader
B7, SRP Bull 1-0 Platoon leader
B8, Civilian, 6mm merc
B9, UN, 6mm Company, 1st PLT leader
B10, Zanzia, Delta plt, Link officer
B12, Yuri Orlov Mercenaries
B14, NAF HQ Intel S2
B15, NAF HQ Intel S2
B16, UPIR HQ QRF

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 571
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Arradin » 17 Jul 2018, 12:42

In order to make berget 17 even better, its much better to say What you would rather do, than What you dont want to do.

This is a feedback thead, but for it to be constructive you need to give ideas for improvement.

We are looking to improve the ”base defense” experience, but its impossible to remove due to rogue groups, if we dont make bases completely off game.
You can reach me directly at email: berget@arradin.com

User avatar
Windi^
Captain
Captain
Posts: 359
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 13:46
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Windi^ » 17 Jul 2018, 12:50

Arradin wrote:
17 Jul 2018, 12:42
In order to make berget 17 even better, its much better to say What you would rather do, than What you dont want to do.

This is a feedback thead, but for it to be constructive you need to give ideas for improvement.

We are looking to improve the ”base defense” experience, but its impossible to remove due to rogue groups, if we dont make bases completely off game.
Only way to get rid off base defense is to make another objective to defend, far enough from the base. I really don't understand why to attack base in this sport. You can't really completely destroy it, wiping out HQ doesn't make that big of a difference. So make the fighting go somewhere else. This years FAD's were too close, so it results the base to be attacked anyway.

Yes sure, whatever the location etc needed to be defended, it's still defensing, but maybe it gives more purpose to defend and/or attack it. Or then get rid of whole defense something mentality, it's really not the necessary for the game, put the effort on actual missions.
B5, FFF Turku-2 Squad leader
B6, SRP Snake 1-0 Platoon leader
B7, SRP Bull 1-0 Platoon leader
B8, Civilian, 6mm merc
B9, UN, 6mm Company, 1st PLT leader
B10, Zanzia, Delta plt, Link officer
B12, Yuri Orlov Mercenaries
B14, NAF HQ Intel S2
B15, NAF HQ Intel S2
B16, UPIR HQ QRF

Dutchman
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Dec 2017, 12:25

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Dutchman » 17 Jul 2018, 12:54

That's why I posted that I'd check when guard duty is and do it. It might not be all that glorious, but is a nescessity and you are right, it's not fair to you if you get stranded because others neglect it. Was also quite shocked that a group of Phantoms took up guard duty at one point because no1 else was there.

I realize it can't all be battle missions (it is milsim after all), but if a whole company gets put on go-wait-and-return missions, then there is a big problem.

Would it not be better to make sure both factions have a more balanced player count, give their HQs liberty in missions and let BE have more influence on the Mercs for balancing? Or just make Mercs bekome a full (but smaller) faction that acts like the England did in history: side with the losing side to make sure the status quo on the mainland is held.

L4gi
Captain
Captain
Posts: 475
Joined: 26 Jun 2008, 19:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by L4gi » 17 Jul 2018, 13:21

Thats what the Mercs did, they were pretty much friendly to blue from game start cause they had less people.

Terry talked to me about you guys not having enough to shoot so we actually came up with 2 "missions" for you guys to go out and shoot. We did what we could to better the situation once your coy commander came to talk to us...

There were a number of teams/squads going rogue which caused a lot of headache for HQ. Probably the worst I've ever seen was a platoon of guys from a team actually called Rogue, that did what they wanted from gamestart without any interest in trying to follow chain of command. Guys like this are what ruins it for others.
B7 / B8 / B9 / B10 / B11 / B12 / B13 / B14 / B15 / B16

Dutchman
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Dec 2017, 12:25

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Dutchman » 17 Jul 2018, 13:57

Ah, this sheds another light on it... So if I understand correctly too many peeps went rogue and caused the others to get the 'leftovers'.
That is eh ... sub-optimal... to put it mildly.
If they wanted 100% action, why didn't they apply for the Phantoms? Guess we'll never know....

Back on topic with what can be improved. What I meant was make sure UPIR and NAF get about the same amount of players so that the 3rd faction does game balancing. personally i asked what the standings with Mercs were the first 2 days, after that I just did no see a differences between NAF and Mercs.
What might be interesting aswell ist a small (20 strong or so) guerilla force from the civilians that do hit-and-run style missions on both sides, regardless of balancing. Just somehow make sure they can't get info on the war status. These kind of thing happen a lot in real conflict areas.

Post Reply